protect that. She goes to a doctor and it's confidential, no matter why it was or what she had done.

to tell me/us how to think.

What would we do without their help?

ergo, bad clinton. dont know if i want to read the rest of the comments.

There are only two kinds of people when it comes to public policy discussion -those who look for mutual points of agreement and others who look for points of separation.

Whatever should I do with this voting thing?

the anti-choicers start talking about women aborting fetuses with Down Syndrome. I worked for an organization helping people with developmental disabilities and I heard some real bitterness from the parents of these individuals who would not have considered abortion due to religious beliefs. And there were some contentious conversations on the subject. They were sensitive to the fact that there are far fewer children with DS born. These parents felt that it was slur against the dignity of disabled people if they are "eliminated" before they are born. And I guess it didn't help that I left that job to go to work for Planned Parenthood's state affiliate...not because of my previous work but because I was so strongly pro-choice and it was a time when clinics providing abortions were under threat of being invaded and shut down by rabid anti-choicers...

Those parents are welcome to their choices, they should return the favor!

some difficult times because their lives were completely centered around caring for the son or daughter with DS. They were in serious need of respite. And they must have been very conflicted. They also didn't know what to do about the future...who would care for their disabled adult child when they were too old or dead? I think these were some of the reasons for that bitterness...

I wish there was a way to bridge that gap, it's hard when people turn abortion into their boogeyman

So they end up with pro-lifers since they support their having given birth. The parents need moral support.

There was a thread here on DU about a famous person saying their having given birth to DS child was 'a sin.' So presumably, they advocated forced abortion to prevent this child living.

Some parents can't afford tests for determining DS. Other parents have children with no sign of disability before or after birth, and then are abandoned by family and friends for the unexpected problems arise.

With rhetoric like that, along with other things thrown in parents' faces, they seek justification for having had, and caring for a disabled child. I rememeber an ER episode years ago that I was shocked watching.

The star of the show, a physician, argued against giving treatment to a girl who had severe disabilities and was in a wheel chair. They said the mother was indulging herself to seek medical care for her, she should let her die. He called the girl 'a pet.'

You don't get much worse than that in saying who and who is not a human.

So there is bitterness, and lot of parents are angry at pro-choice as they feel that they are saying their child shouldn't be a burden. But in areas that serve the disabled well, generally progressive, liberal, mainly Democratic, they feel acceptance.

I've got to get some sleep. Hope that made sense.

of what she was actually saying, i got why she choose that word and how she flipped it totally around, from how others have used rare to denigrate womens choice.

i did not even consider discourse because she clearly took it to rw screwing with family planning and contraceptive. it was very very clear.

so, when i posted the OP, i was only posting cause i thought a kick ass speech i had yet to hear and that we should all hear how clinton argues with the rw on this issue.

low and behold my surprise that context did not matter in the usage of rare.

i cant hardly see the other side, even though passionate arguments and i am totally on board with the use of the word rare, when taking the whole speech and usage into account.

They just want to jump on her shit about it.

But I'm one of those who think that by wanting abortion to be rare is wrong. We don't live in a perfect world where we can easily reduce the need for abortion. Hell, abortion is already rare. And the RW is also trying to make birth control rare. How are you going to reduce the need for abortion if birth control is rare??

This is our sickening reality in America. Without ubiquitous and perfect birth control used perfectly 100% of the time, abortions will be necessary.

I see the people defending "rare" as not able to see the reality of the climate around reproduction in this country.

words matter. see how i can change the meaning of what you say. with your simple statement as you start your explaintion. cause lets focus on, words matter

wanting abortion to be rare is wrong.

i can easily say, what kind of monster are you. that with education and technology and access to care, we can have invasive surgery a thing of the past.

we should demand it be rare. in the acceptance it is womens health care and no ones damn business.

how can you suggest rarely having abortions is wrong when we have access to so many different choices that will avoid an invasive procedure that cause pain and costs more and is more timely, the effort large, and aftermath more effecting.

that is what you and others are doing with clintons speech. you take one word and create your story.

pretty frustrating and insulting, right?

You're having some comprehension issues.

i copied and pasted and argued.... what you... YOU said.

and here you are doing it again.

No, you're right: Hillary didn't talk about limiting abortion. But making abortion rare as a goal logically limits the availability of abortion. That's reality.

Let's play the tape forward and imagine you've met your goal of safe, legal, rare abortion. Let's say that we have perfect birth control, used perfectly, 100% of the time. So that makes the need for abortions much less, because unwanted pregnancies don't occur. It's a world where almost all pregnancies are perfect, wanted, and planned-for. Well, that would serve the goal of making abortion rare, wouldn't it? So why would we need a bunch of doctors who can perform abortions and why would we need a bunch of abortion clinics? After all, it's such a rare procedure now because every pregnancy is wanted. Eliminate the clinics - there's no need for them. But what if you're one of the very rare women who ends up with a fetal deformity they couldn't test for until you were well into your first trimester, a fetal deformity so awful that the baby will be born in pain, gasp for breath, and die as it is coming out of the womb? And you want to avail yourself of the safe, legal, rare abortion to spare that poor child from that painful birth/death. Where are the clinics? Where are the doctors? Who is going to give you an abortion - which you legally can pursue - if it has become so rare that hardly anyone does them?


Do you see that point? What if we live in that world where abortion is rare and so there are no clinics anymore? Then where would the rare woman go when she does need one?

Without all this angsty emotionialization of the fetus. It is a medical procedure. It carries less risk than a pregnancy, but there are risks. Birth control carries even less risk than either, but still, does carry risk. Having a variety of options to choose from without judgment, without reservation, should be a human right of every woman.

The bottom line is Clinton is NOT working to restrict access to abortion. She is working to expand reproductive access.

that is. i wont argue something she has not done or said.

I'd rather see good reproductive health services for all, abortion seen as a surgical procedure and not a moral dilemma.

Bill Clinton used the phrase in '96, Obama in '10. It's become a kind of meme. The fact that Senator Clinton gets so much shit for using it after her work for women's justice is disturbing.

I understand that you want to reduce the need for abortion. Good. Unwanted pregnancies should be reduced - I fully agree. But let's focus on good reproductive prevention and care rather than talk about making a hard-to-get procedure even harder to get.

It's a politicians phrase yes, but in Clintons case I believe she meant as a health issue not a moral one, and I don't believe she is working to make abortions more difficult to get.

The "safe, legal and rare" is a Dem party stance as well, in the context of options

Thanks for posting.

we are dealing wit the same in gd with another character.